British horsemen’s group minimum prize money tariffs

[Irish Stamp]

It'll be interesting to see who might seriously pitch to buy it. There are supposedly all sorts of contenders, although some, like Simon and David Reuben who own Northern Racing and a large share of Arena Leisure, aren't really 'racing' people. Perhaps, seen as purely another investment opportunity, you don't need 'racing' people at the helm, though?

If the guys from Northern Racing and Arena get hold of the product then the ship that is currently exiting the harbour will soon be in the middle of the Atlantic.

Look at what they've done to Chepstow, Newcastle, Southwell (they've put less than £1,000 into prize money of late) in addition to a "less is more" attitude to prize money ie. look at the said courses above, and other Northern Racing courses combined with a few Arena Racing tracks and you'll see a Tote monopoly on British racing head the same way.

We'll be destined for the equivalent of 2.5% per runner SP's and more money going into the backpockets of the Reuben brothers, whilst having near enough zero competition.

Regulated competition is the only way for British racing to increase prize money, through legislation dictating the tax source and base of bookmakers betting legally in this country - similar to how the levy board currently operates but with a share of all racing profits from exchanges and fixed odds bookmakers being put back into racing, whilst at the same time attempting to (though from past experiences it looks near impossible) develop a strong alternative to exchanges and books (think a strong Tote and on-course market).

 

[Sheikh]

Who's fault is this? The bookies, the authorities, the trainers or does the punter have something to answer for? If people didn;t bet on the gaff track racing it wouldn't happen....

I haven't had a bet on the all weather for about two years but people clearly do and whilst they do it's here to stay and if it is the prize money will always be diluted.

It's a red herring to blame smaller tracks for existing, they exist because there are owners and trainers etc who want to race . The future is in funding not cutting.

 

[krizon]

IS, actually, the Reuben Bros. have done nothing for the courses you mention: they bought outright or into the 'products' as they stood. Sir Stan Clarke poured millions into some shithole courses and brought them up to a standard where the public would want to visit, rather than avoid a case of the crabs. The Reubens' monetary input is static as far as I know, since both companies have received interest-free grants from the LEVY to build the new stand/bar/restaurant combo at Fontwell and the new hotel/spa on-course at Lingfield.

I didn't know that it was the Levy's job to make interest-free loans to racecourses, to be honest - I thought that all investment was inward from profits made. I now wonder how many other courses have benefitted from such refurbishments without doffing a cap of recognition to the Levy, if it loaned instead of a commercial establishment? Certainly the chunky profits they show so far wouldn't be there if they were paying commercial-rate loans.

Of course - and that's what I've been saying - the government should be supporting racing in seeking to optimise income from all forms of betting income, but it seems to have lost its way on the issue, particularly in failing to address the huge profits being made simply due to offshore status.

Thank you, Sheikh, for agreeing with my prior post on that issue. Lowered prize money is bugger-all to do with low-rated horses, low-rated trainers and less well-heeled owners than oil-rich sheikhs, Agas and Queens, and all to do with the loss of income from the Levy simply due to bookies going offshore, where they're as happy to take punts on Class 6 races wherever, just as they were when they weren't offshore. It has nothing to do with all weather or grass competitions! (Christ, I'm exasperated on this.)

 

[Irish Stamp]

Thanks Kri AFAIK the Levy Board's job is to partially fund the prize money for the races, it's then up to the racecourses to raise extra funds for the races in the form of sponsorship - well in the case of British racing it's to name races as they see fit and pocket the money.

The Reuben Brothers may well have only bought the product but courses like Newcastle, Chepstow etc. have all gone rapidly downhill in recent (think the last 6 or 7) years and the brothers don't seem to be doing anything about, nor for that matter does anyone at Northern Racing from the point of view of increasing prize money, staging better quality racing, attracting a traditional racing crowd.

There's nothing wrong with the racecourses building from their own profits but none of this seems to be going back into racing - which is what the owners and trainers are complaining about, money exiting racing through bookies profits and in the case of the racecourses through racecourse profits.

It's all well and good building a new hotel and a spa and a restaurant but is that going to help the prize fund or the racing industry or is it just going to serve to help each racecourse diversify from its core product in the same way that bookmakers are diversifying from the core racing product to betting on football, rugby, virtual racing, FOBT's, South African racing etc.

If Lingfield weren't being paid to stage meetings would we see 3 or 4 meetings a week at the course or would we see them staging 4 or 5 a month in the winter and attempting to attract far more conferences and the like to the Grandstand and restaraunt (which at a guess would be cheaper due to the relative lack of facilities required to stage such conferences)?

 

[krizon]

Much as I know it's fashionable to batter the AW courses, bear in mind that Lingfield also stages as many turf fixtures per Flat season as any other! Plus a handful of NH ones, too. The newest leaflets state 'Lingfield Park Racing Country Club' so the idea there is for the hotel/spa to attract people for golf 'n' racing weekdays/weekends/weeks, while perhaps their Good Ladeeze relax under hot stones or hotter masseurs.

You say 'if Lingfield weren't being paid to stage meetings' - you might as well say that about every course, since SIS lob them all at least £4,000 a race - but that isn't Lingfield or Southwell or Goodwood or Hereford or Bath or Ayr's doing. SIS wanted picture rights to show in all the betting shops, and the courses wanted paying to give them those rights, and that's the offer SIS made on behalf of all the bookies and punters who want to see their horses run, without the need to visit a course.

The course does attract plenty of non-racing income but, as I've said perhaps only 458 times before, racecourses keep separate income streams from racing, and non-racing, activity. The non-racing activity income does not go into racing's pot - it goes to fund the maintenance and/or expansion of those facilities (bars, kitchens, restaurants, the salaries of catering staff and the admin staff administering them). It doesn't go into buying a new irrigator for the turf or a replacement harrow for the AW!

Without picture rights, most small courses would fold their tents and become housing or light industrial sites. For example, Folkestone (Arena) is planning to sell off enough of its land to a developer to build on it some 800 houses, close down for at least a year, reshape the actual course, knock down and build a new grandstand and related facilities - it couldn't possibly do that relying on gate turnout alone. Gate takes, including hospitality bookings and high-priced restaurant packages, don't generate enough to pay staff, insurances, utilities (think of the water bills environmentally unfriendly turf courses incur), vehicles, buildings' maintenance, world without end. Picture rights are keeping a lot of courses going in these days of alternative amusements.

Your point about diversification would be met by a corporate answer that as racing alone (i.e. as a spectacle) can't generate additional business, it needs all these add-ons to attract slightly more sophisticated racegoers than, say, 20 years and more ago. And because, as I've said before, there's so much other competition to take the public away from racedays. Shopping, for example, has taken on a life as a social activity, rather than a boring chore to be got through as quickly as possible. People now hugely combine it with food and drink, and make an occasion out of it. So, it's right in that added on-course facilities do attract more people to come racing as it's now seen much more as a social event than just a place for old boys in battered trilbies; yet it's not right that the income stream thus generated goes back directly into racing. It helps racing in that it puts more bums on velour seats, but it doesn't mean that the profits from the Christmas parties, birthday bashes and weddings go to fund higher prize money for owners, or new rakes for the groundsmen. It will go, in a circular fashion, back to itself.

 

[krizon]

Sorry, Martin: banged on a bit there (again!). In very simple terms, the cut of the day goes like this:

Entrance fee and race cards: to the racing end of the business

Money in from restaurants, hospitality, any onsite hotel/shop/trade stall, conferencing, parties - in fact all catered functions and non-racing activities: non-racing account.

For example, the 'free' tea and coffee issued via voucher to Lingfield's incoming owners and trainers is actually charged (on the basis of the number of vouchers collected) by the course's catering department to the racing section! That's how nit-picky it is.

 

[swedish chef]

Tariff suspended for top races

The Horsemen's Group have suspended the controversial prize-money tariff for top races - just days before they were set to be introduced on the Flat.

Minimum cash levels for Group and Listed races on the Flat, and Graded and Listed races over jumps, have been dispensed with with immediate effect.

Values for other races have been "rounded", with the tariffs due to come into effect on the Flat on Saturday.

This action follows further discussions with trainers, owners and racecourses and comes after the support for the tariff policy from Sheikh Mohammed's powerful racing operation Godolphin and champion Flat trainer Richard Hannon.

"The tariff has set a standard for minimum prize-money levels across all classes of race, providing an important guide for horsemen," said the Horsemen's Group chief executive Alan Morcombe.

"Since its introduction it has become the benchmark for minimum prize-money, replacing the BHA minimum prize-money levels that were withdrawn.

"Many racecourses have responded positively to the tariff and prize-money has increased as a result.

"However, having monitored the implementation of the tariff over recent weeks, we believe that an overall rounding of the prize-money levels to make it easier for horsemen and racecourses to manage the tariff would be beneficial and this has been completed.

"The recent support of Godolphin and horsemen at all levels has demonstrated the importance of actively supporting our drive to ensure that prize-money does not continue to reduce from what is already an unacceptable level.

"For clarification, I have stated in the past that horsemen have many reasons for deciding whether to enter races where the tariff is not being met and this is most relevant at Class One level where there are strong business and racing reasons for running horses in races. On occasions, these go beyond prize-money.

"For this reason we are suspending the Class One tariff for the remainder of 2011 and racecourses will instead be expected to at least meet the BHA minimum values for Group and Listed races on the Flat and Graded and Listed races for Jump events.

"As far as Flat Class One is concerned, prize-money for these races is to some extent protected by international competition.

"The ongoing stability of the best of British racing, the career of quality horses and their future stud value are very important considerations.

"I therefore understand the necessity for horsemen to enter races below tariff at times where these additional important business considerations apply.

"This does not mean the tariff does not remain an important indicator of prize-money.

"It does, however, recognise that we are sensitive to the wider needs of our members who we understand have to balance important factors relating to quality horses with prize-money levels of top-class races."

 

[Bar the Bull]

So this opens the way for a full-scale war on low prize money for tin-pot races.

 

[Irish Stamp]

Pretty much Bar - it strikes me that the big boys aren't overly keen on missing out on the Royal Ascot races and other Group 1's so are trying to force the smaller trainers to play ball at Windsor, Southwell, Leicester, Catterick or any other track that falls below the tariff.

 

[swedish chef]

The fact the big boys were supposedly prepared to miss out on some black type is what made this interesting - looks like they've bottled it imo and have very much weakened their case.

 

[jinnyj]

The BHA have never been interested in the lower end of the racing scale. In their eyes they have a 3 tier system and anything under a 0-70 on the lowest tier they couldn't give a stuff about - they included this in a lecture I attended at the BRS Trainers courses.

What they fail to take on board is that they are losing countless new owners to racing because a huge number come in at this lowest tier often via syndicates. When their horse turns out to be able to win a few races, they are naturally delighted. When the prize money for these few races doesn't remotely break even with what they are shelling out for training fees, they rightly become disillusioned and leave the game instead of re-investing in another potentially better horse. Should the BHA not be encouraging ALL owners to stay in the game?

 

[davidjohnson]

I haven't had a bet on the all weather for about two years but people clearly do and whilst they do it's here to stay and if it is the prize money will always be diluted.

A lot of the all-weather meetings in winter generate more levy than they cost to run. So to suggest these races dilute prize money is wide of the mark.

 

[On The Bridle]

The BHA have never been interested in the lower end of the racing scale. In their eyes they have a 3 tier system and anything under a 0-70 on the lowest tier they couldn't give a stuff about - they included this in a lecture I attended at the BRS Trainers courses.

What they fail to take on board is that they are losing countless new owners to racing because a huge number come in at this lowest tier often via syndicates. When their horse turns out to be able to win a few races, they are naturally delighted. When the prize money for these few races doesn't remotely break even with what they are shelling out for training fees, they rightly become disillusioned and leave the game instead of re-investing in another potentially better horse. Should the BHA not be encouraging ALL owners to stay in the game?

Spot on jinnyj - with a win or two a year the average owner should get close to breaking even - what perplexes me about some of what's said above is the short sightedness being displayed by the horsemen. If they will sell out for black type then who will be left to pay the inflated stud fees and buy the end product. Nobody sets out to breed a class 6 horse but it happens! A lot of them happen to be by Coolmore and Godolphin horses by the way! Horse racing will eat itself if this continues. The bookmaking fraternity and Betfair really need to stand up and face their responsibilities.

 

[Shadow Leader]

I can't understand the quibbling about £100k races falling £6k short of the tariff - ffs! They want to be concentrating on the lower end, up to the £20k mark, say, and increasing that. If you win a bumper today you'll be lucky to break even with around £900 to the winner - before taking into account jockey fees, transport, etc. On the AW they're often racing for £900 or thereabouts, doesn't even cover the training fees. With these bottom end races they should do something about them or do away with them altogether, not leave them in this ridiculous state which positively encourages skulduggery. A lot of AW races are a case of 'spot the trier' nowadays as the only way to recoup the costs is to have heavy gambles having pulled them for a few runs.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I can't understand the quibbling about £100k races falling £6k short of the tariff - ffs! They want to be concentrating on the lower end, up to the £20k mark, say, and increasing that. If you win a bumper today you'll be lucky to break even with around £900 to the winner - before taking into account jockey fees, transport, etc. On the AW they're often racing for £900 or thereabouts, doesn't even cover the training fees. With these bottom end races they should do something about them or do away with them altogether, not leave them in this ridiculous state which positively encourages skulduggery. A lot of AW races are a case of 'spot the trier' nowadays as the only way to recoup the costs is to have heavy gambles having pulled them for a few runs.

I agree with your first point. But your point about lower grade races suggests to me that there is overproduction of horses. Instead of 1,000 races worth £1,000 to £2,000, why not have 300 races worth £3,500 to £7,000? Because there are too many shite horses to incorporate.

I don't know the answer, but I think that is the problem.

 

[krizon]

Oh, come on, let's stop forever knocking the synthetics - there are loads and loads of 'shite horses' in NH, too. In fact, as we all know, most of the hurdles races in the UK are loaded with ex-Flat horses which weren't much cop, and now are hurdlers which aren't much cop. I get a bit - no, a lot - tired of fingers always pointing to the Flat horses as if they're the only ones contributing to the 'dross' seen on courses.

However, Bar, just look to Ireland for overproduction, will you? English fields aren't that huge compared to your country's government-induced surplus, thanks to the (now cancelled) sire subsidies, so that any old mare could stagger in to be served by stallions who were last heard of in 1889. We don't have - any showing on tv by ATR or RUK will demonstrate - the size fields you muster for every race, NH or Flat, every meeting, in Ireland.

It does not - NOT NOT NOT - (shall I say it thrice more?) follow that because of the amount of horses racing, that prize money is shite. IT'S DOWN TO THE REDUCTION IN THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LEVY BOARD, DUE TO SO MUCH BOOKMAKING GOING OFFSHORE AND BEING UNTAXABLE, AND THE RISE AND RISE OF THE NON-TAXABLE EXCHANGES. You had 'shite horses' back in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 - you haven't just suddenly got the feckers! You - the punting public - were happy enough to embrace all the racing you could get as long as you found your winners. I didn't hear any concern about overproduction from punters then.

IT'S THE LEVY, but the Levy is dry, okay? So, the answer is: SHOOT THE HORSES, because the bookies don't pay taxes like they used to. They're just a betting commodity to a helluva lot of punters, who wouldn't miss the 'shite' as they don't contribute to them in any way. Then you'd have far fewer horses, far fewer meetings...


... and start bitching that you don't have enough betting opportunities in the UK, and are looking seriously at Borrowdale for your value.

And if you want to winnow out your 'shite horses', as has been said above, you'd be losing entire yards, putting hundreds of people out of work, closing down attendant operations like transporters, and probably raising the price of admission to the 'superior' racing the courses would then put on.

And, for the future, what would you like done with all those new 2 y.o.'s which spring hopefully onto the courses every year and don't immediately do well? Just shoot them, too? If you can't break 85 by the time you turn 3, you get the bullet? Nobody knows how even the best-bred will turn out, but presumably if they're 'shite', they should be shot. A new slogan for Racing for Change, perhaps? "Shoot the Shite". I can see it on punters' bumper stickers as I type.

 

[On The Bridle]

Over-production will right itself over time as the demand and supply of market forces exerts it's influence. Why should owners fund the lower tiers of racing? The integrity of the sport at this level is already in serious question due to lack of funding. Where would racing be on the Uk without the likes of Godolphin who are pumping billions into the industry every year with little chance of a return. My thoughts are foremost with the smaller yards and owners who run their horses around the "gaff tracks". All they ask for is a remote possibility of breaking even on their running costs (forget the original investment) should they be luckly enough to win one or maybe two races a season with their horses. This racing provides the basic fodder for the licenced bookmakers and exchanges who by shrinking away from the levy are not contributing their fair share.
Look at the maths - cost of keeping a horse in training, travel, vets, entries, jockey fees etc £15,000 for a nine month season.
That horse would have to win almost 20 £1,000 races to break even after 20% deductions for trainers and jockeys %.
This situation is ludicrous and anyone who believes it can continue into the medium term is off their rocker!
Betfair should be boycotted by Irish customers and UK customers on Irish racing. They are a parasite on Irish Racing and have followed the exodus off shore in the UK also. If we could trust a Tote Monopoly and get the right people to run it - with the caveat of on- course bookmakers that may work - otherwise the vested interest who pays least in proportion to their gain ie the bookmaking fraternity need to pay up!

 

[davidjohnson]

A new slogan for Racing for Change, perhaps? "Shoot the Shite". I can see it on punters' bumper stickers as I type.

Racing For Change did actually make noises about bullet races. But I don't think this is what they had in mind.

 

[Bar the Bull]

Oh, come on, let's stop forever knocking the synthetics - there are loads and loads of 'shite horses' in NH, too.

I agree.

Oh, come on, let's stop forever knocking the synthetics - there are loads and loads of 'shite horses' in NH, too. In fact, as we all know, most of the hurdles races in the UK are loaded with ex-Flat horses which weren't much cop, and now are hurdlers which aren't much cop. I get a bit - no, a lot - tired of fingers always pointing to the Flat horses as if they're the only ones contributing to the 'dross' seen on courses.

However, Bar, just look to Ireland for overproduction, will you? English fields aren't that huge compared to your country's government-induced surplus, thanks to the (now cancelled) sire subsidies, so that any old mare could stagger in to be served by stallions who were last heard of in 1889.

Once again, I agree. I never said anything about English horses exclusively.

It does not - NOT NOT NOT - (shall I say it thrice more?) follow that because of the amount of horses racing, that prize money is shite. IT'S DOWN TO THE REDUCTION IN THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE LEVY BOARD, DUE TO SO MUCH BOOKMAKING GOING OFFSHORE AND BEING UNTAXABLE, AND THE RISE AND RISE OF THE NON-TAXABLE EXCHANGES. You had 'shite horses' back in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 - you haven't just suddenly got the feckers!

But prize money was still a problem in all of those years.

You - the punting public - were happy enough to embrace all the racing you could get as long as you found your winners. I didn't hear any concern about overproduction from punters then.

I did.

IT'S THE LEVY, but the Levy is dry, okay? So, the answer is: SHOOT THE HORSES, because the bookies don't pay taxes like they used to. They're just a betting commodity to a helluva lot of punters, who wouldn't miss the 'shite' as they don't contribute to them in any way. Then you'd have far fewer horses, far fewer meetings...

I never said shoot them, I said stop making them.

... and start bitching that you don't have enough betting opportunities in the UK, and are looking seriously at Borrowdale for your value.

I have never complained about too few betting opportunities. Just too few good racees.

And if you want to winnow out your 'shite horses', as has been said above, you'd be losing entire yards, putting hundreds of people out of work, closing down attendant operations like transporters, and probably raising the price of admission to the 'superior' racing the courses would then put on.

But things aren't great at the moment, are they? I hear complaints about stable staff pay, difficulty pinhooking, high admission prices, low prize money and high training fees. It sounds to me like too much economic effort is being focussed on this area, chasing too few dollars.

And, for the future, what would you like done with all those new 2 y.o.'s which spring hopefully onto the courses every year and don't immediately do well? Just shoot them, too? If you can't break 85 by the time you turn 3, you get the bullet? Nobody knows how even the best-bred will turn out, but presumably if they're 'shite', they should be shot. A new slogan for Racing for Change, perhaps? "Shoot the Shite". I can see it on punters' bumper stickers as I type.

No, don't shoot them. Just don't produce them.

 

[Grey]

From an article in The Independent on 17 March:

The bloodstock industry – has been in something of a freefall since the credit crunch.
The industry's troubles are part of Ireland's overall crippling national economic crisis, and the ripples may be felt for many years to come, on both sides of the Irish Sea. Irish throughbreds are renowned worldwide for their excellence in both jump and Flat racing – and that well has been growing drier. There were 12,800 racehorse foals born in 2008; last year, the latest crop registered was just 7,800.
"A large element of that was eliminating surplus," said Brian Kavanagh, chief executive of Horse Racing Ireland, "but its effects will be felt none the less, in two years on the Flat and about four years over jumps. We wonder if we'll have enough horses to fill the races."

 

[Roddy Owen]

Four years to wait eh Grey. Can we last that long.?

 

[Aragorn]

A lot of the all-weather meetings in winter generate more levy than they cost to run. So to suggest these races dilute prize money is wide of the mark.

The levy that's moving offshore at a rapid rate? And it's a sustainable position? Can't see it. It's certainly not sustainable for the owners. Moreover if you have less racing you will have more concentrated betting and therefore more races will pay for themselves. That's a short sighted view - or a bookmakers.

The only involvement I have in the industry is through ownership and I can tell you that my horse will have earned nearly £12k in the last calendar year but that is nowhere near enough to cover overheads and acquisition costs. £12k in a year is not bad either but he's only managed that by winning a race worth £6500 to the winner - How much will that race be worth this year? No idea but I will be getting out soon myself because it's just not worth it. The racecourses are becoming tighter in terms of owners badges as well which spoils the experience... Basically because they can't afford to...

Market dynamics will sort this out eventually anyway...

 

[krizon]

Larf - Matt Chapman now dismissing THG as entirely discredited since top NH trainers flaunted their 'suggestion' not to run for below-tariff races, saying they needed the runs before Cheltenham, while the 'little' trainers and owners, more or less hectored not to run at the likes of Lingfield (NH or AW or grass) have seen this as the high 'n' mighy 'in the champagne tent' trying to tell the pie 'n' mash brigade how to run their lives. Chapman also demands - rightly - who the people were who decided to put the tariff together? Where only top trainers involved in the decision-making or was it, as he suspects, the rich moguls at the top of British racing?

Don't know about owners' badges, Aragorn - are you in Ireland? Because I understand they're very mean about them over there. Standard 8 complimentaries with Arena Leisure, standard 6 with Northern Racing, with a fairly easy-going attitude to the number of extras you can buy at a huge discount (same privileges) if you bring a gang, two for trainers, two for breeders.

 

[Grey]

I think there are two separated but related issues being discussed here.

The first is the level of prize money, and the second is whether there is too much racing.

Prize money is mainly obtained from the levy, but bookmakers have been finding ways to avoid paying it. Although the details are different, both the UK and Irish governments are faced a similar difficulty and need to find a way to get a stable and fair share of revenue from betting.

The second issue is what to do with the revenue thus obtained. Should it be spread around as widely as it is at present, or concentrated on higher quality racing? The approach in the UK has been to spread it around and maximise activity. This has the advantage of generating extra employment, and it is likely that giving the betting public plenty of racing is also the best way to maximise the levy. There is a suspicion that diminishing returns are setting in due to punter fatigue and competition from other sports, but dealing with this is probably a matter of adjusting to market conditions rather than a complete change of approach.

Racing in Ireland faces a different set of circumstances, because punters in betting shops bet on both UK and Irish racing, which in practice means they bet mostly on UK racing because there is more of it. If UK punters are at or near saturation point, the same must certainly be true in Ireland, and therefore expanding the quantity of Irish racing on offer would be harmful.

The priority for Irish racing has to be to develop on-course rather than off-course activity, which is governed mainly by what happens in the UK, and this means getting as many people as possible to attend meetings. In fairness the Irish racing authorities seem to realise this and having taken a series of initiatives to launch special offers and reduce admission prices. Apart from offering concessions, the best hope of generating good attendances is to ensure that racing is competitive and of decent quality, and the best way to do that is to keep prize money at levels where people are happy to keep horses in Ireland rather than send them elsewhere.

Therefore in my opinion the ideal strategies for UK and Irish racing are different. UK racing needs to keep looking for the right balance between staging enough racing to maximise levy returns and maintaining high standards for its core of quality events. Irish racing, on the other hand, can concentrate on the racegoing public and needs to do whatever is needed to keep them coming to the track.

 

[krizon]

Thanks, Grey. I didn't articulate the differences as well as you've done: you've also raised the differences between an Irish and a British perspective, which has to be taken into account.

It should mean that more racing means more bookies' turnover = more taxable income feeding back into racing via the Levy. Thus, lots of racing should be good for prize money. But lots of racing means, inevitably, far more mediocre tiers, and one must also take into account the fact that the highest-placed horses don't run that often. It's all very well calling for a reduction in the lower-rated horses, but they are the backbone of British racing. If we relied on the top echelons to keep British racing going, we'd be down to a handful of 3 y.o.'s on the Flat, all of them off to stud as soon as mission accomplished (that's about four races apiece), and perhaps 12 classy stalwarts of NH. Not enough to fill one meeting, let alone hundreds.

But thanks for an objective perspective which doesn't require the mass slaughter (the answer for some, taken to its logical conclusion) of three-quarters of the current horses in training (UK) and a trail of wrecked lives behind it. I still feel our British govt is turning a blind, or lazy, eye to the lost income from offshore havens for an industry happy to gorge itself on an expensive product, while returning only a tip and a burp in exchange for the meal.